Define Democracy And Dictatorship In Your Own Words Politics Essay

Define Democracy And Dictatorship In Your Own Words Politics Essay According to Abraham Lincoln democracy is defined as the government, of the people, for the people and by the people. It is a political system in which the supreme power lies in somebody of citizens which are elected by the citizens of that country through lawful voting. It is most acceptable governing system because it includes the participation of every single individual in the country and they become a part of the process of governing the legislature is elected by the people. It is the most advantageous fact that if any political party is corrupt or failing in this duty then it will not be re-elected the next time. In India, England, America, etc., there is democracy. When the government is ruled by an individual then that autocratic form of government is called dictatorship and that individual is known as dictator. in a dictatorship, its one leader controls every aspect of the nation, and no one can argue against it. Actually, it is a centralization of power in which the fundamental rights of citizens become vanish. In China, Egypt, etc., there is dictatorship. Constitution of India is the extreme law of India. It lays down the framework defining fundamental political principles, establishing the structure, procedures, powers and duties, of the government and spells out the fundamental rights, directive principles and duties of citizens. It was passed on 26 Nov. 1949 by the Constitution Assembly and effectively applied on 26 January 1950 in the whole country. The date 26 January was chosen to commemorate the declaration of independence of 1930. It declares the Union of India to be a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic, assuring its citizens of justice, equality, and liberty and to promote among them all fraternity; the words socialist, secular and integrity and to promote among them all Fraternity; were added to the definition in 1976 by constitutional amendment. India celebrates the adoption of the constitution on 26 January each year as Republic Day. It is the longest written constitution of any self-governing country in th e world, containing 440 articles in 22 parts, 12 schedules and 94 amendments, for a total of 117,369 words in the English language version. Besides the English version, there is an official Hindi translation. After coming into effect, the Constitution replaced the Government of India Act 1935 as the governing document of India. Being the supreme law of the country, every law enacted by the government must conform to the constitution. B. R. Ambedkar, as chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, was the chief architect of the Indian Constitution.

Social Groups :: essays research papers

There are various social groups in our school and town. They form into different types of groups. Some of these are grouped by racial background, athletic abilities, hobbies, and intelligence. Usually racial groups, people of the same race stay together. There are a mediocre amount of athletic ability groups. Most of them are from schools and are â€Å"organized† gangs. They usually play games or some type of sport together. People who have the same hobbies frequently stay together and do what they all enjoy. Generally, these groups do not commit crimes. Groups grouped by intelligence are usually come from school. People with the same amount of intelligence stay together. People in these different groups interact most of time within there own groups. Usually groups that do not commit crime usually play games, sports or help each other. Sometimes there are fights within the group. Fights are not frequent among members of different groups although they can happen. The fights inc lude physical and verbal fights. The most common are verbal fights. Rarely do physical fights occur between gangs and groups in our community. Most organized gangs use verbal fights or a game to determine who is better. After a long and tiring fight, many changes can occur to the members of the gang. Personality and feelings can be changed greatly. Members of the group could have once been enemies to another but then they might feel pity for those they have beaten. We humans are born to socialize. It is very important to be in a social group. People in the social groups are friends and it is very important to have friends. A good social group can make you have a good reputation. In addition, the school or town can be famous for it too. Members usually join willingly most of the time if the group is good. However, sometimes members are forced to join. People make other people join by threatening or offering them. Most of the groups in our town or school are not dangerous. Some gangs that like to commit crimes are also in this neighborhood. Social Groups :: essays research papers There are various social groups in our school and town. They form into different types of groups. Some of these are grouped by racial background, athletic abilities, hobbies, and intelligence. Usually racial groups, people of the same race stay together. There are a mediocre amount of athletic ability groups. Most of them are from schools and are â€Å"organized† gangs. They usually play games or some type of sport together. People who have the same hobbies frequently stay together and do what they all enjoy. Generally, these groups do not commit crimes. Groups grouped by intelligence are usually come from school. People with the same amount of intelligence stay together. People in these different groups interact most of time within there own groups. Usually groups that do not commit crime usually play games, sports or help each other. Sometimes there are fights within the group. Fights are not frequent among members of different groups although they can happen. The fights inc lude physical and verbal fights. The most common are verbal fights. Rarely do physical fights occur between gangs and groups in our community. Most organized gangs use verbal fights or a game to determine who is better. After a long and tiring fight, many changes can occur to the members of the gang. Personality and feelings can be changed greatly. Members of the group could have once been enemies to another but then they might feel pity for those they have beaten. We humans are born to socialize. It is very important to be in a social group. People in the social groups are friends and it is very important to have friends. A good social group can make you have a good reputation. In addition, the school or town can be famous for it too. Members usually join willingly most of the time if the group is good. However, sometimes members are forced to join. People make other people join by threatening or offering them. Most of the groups in our town or school are not dangerous. Some gangs that like to commit crimes are also in this neighborhood.

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Presidential Election Essay

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict and the Presidential Election America has lost sight of the big picture. The war on terror is not going to be won through military endeavors or through appeals for international cooperation. Sure, those are both essential parts of combating terrorism, and Americans strive to achieve in both categories. However, this is not a war to simply meet indiscriminate aggression against aggression. This is neither a World War nor a Cold War. Only about one-third of the battle against terrorism is fought through military means, and that’s the easy part. The remaining 66 percent – the bulk of the big picture – deals with convincing those hostile to American intentions that flying planes into buildings, strapping bombs to chests and planting mines near roadsides is a waste of time, energy, and valuable lives. What can America do to offer people of the Middle East alternatives to terrorism while simultaneously standing unequivocally opposed to terrorism and its tactics? Whatever policy it chooses to pursue, one thing is certain: the starting point is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is from America’s stance in this situation that all hostilities towards the United States stem. Here’s the thing: Arab nations strongly sympathize with the Palestinian cause. For most of them, it is their number one foreign policy issue, even though it really has nothing to do with the interests of the individual states. Many Arabs feel that it is their duty to do everything in their power to oppose the aggressor, Israel, and its main supporter, the United States. If you combine this with a largely uneducated and population without jobs that’s frequently manipulated by radical clerics, you have a r... ...;http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage>. 2. Bennet, James. Israel Rightists Endorse Pullout from Gaza Strip.† New York Times 19 April 2004: N1+. 3. Foreign Policy: Working for Peace in the Middle East and Security for Israel. John Kerry for President. 20 April 2004 . 4. Friedman, Thomas L. â€Å"Kicking Over the Chessboard.† New York Times 18 April 2004: WK13. 5. Middle East. 20 April 2004. BBC News. 20 April 2004 . 6. Myre, Greg. â€Å"Leader of Hamas Killed by Israel in Missile Attack.† New York Times 18 April 2004: N1+. 7. A National Security Strategy that Meets the Challenges of Our Time. Bush Cheney ’04. 20 April 2004 . 8. Paula Zahn Now (Replay). CNN. 20 April 2004, 2:00 a.m. – 3:00 a.m.

Feminist Anthropology

Introduction In the center of the nineteenth century the theory of feminist anthropology emerged as a reaction to a perceived androcentric prejudice within the field of anthropology ( Lamphere 1996: 488 ) . Symbolic anthropology, on the other manus, emerged during the twentieth century and formed in response to the dissatisfaction with the theory of structural linguistics that was grounded in linguistics and semiologies ( Des Chene 1996:1275 ) . The purpose of this paper is to analyze the similarities and differences between the theories of feminist anthropology and symbolic anthropology in order to better understand the impact both motions had on the societal scientific disciplines. Both of these theories, although seemingly unrelated, portion a assortment of similarities that are at the nucleus of the paradigm displacement in anthropology that continues today. Further, an scrutiny of some of the cardinal figures in anthropology who influenced the outgrowth of these theoretical tendencies, will further clarify the principle for their development.OrAdditionally, an scrutiny of some of the cardinal figures in anthropology who influenced these paradigm ‘s will further light these th eories ‘ importance. Although this paper can non supply a complete analysis of what differs and remains the same between feminist and symbolic anthropology, we can make a better apprehension of the two theoretical schools of idea and the impact they had on the field of anthropology and societal scientific discipline as a whole. However, before comparing and contrasting the theories, it is indispensable to hold a basic apprehension of what each theory entails. Basic Dogmas of Feminist Anthropology In the history of anthropology, three different moving ridges of feminist anthropology occurred with varying focal points ( Gellner and Stockett, 2006 ) . These different moving ridges did non to the full occur in chronological order and there are convergences with some of the theories of each still relevant today. The first moving ridge occurred between 1850 and 1920, and had the primary end of including adult females ‘s voices into descriptive anthropology. At the clip, there was really small ethnographic informations refering adult females, and the informations that did be was mostly the studies of male sources talking for adult females and analyzed through male ethnographers ( Pine 1996: 253 ) . The focal point of the 2nd moving ridge, which occurred between 1920 and 1980 was an effort to divide the impressions of sex and gender. Until this point, the footings had been used interchangeably and the word â€Å" Gender † referred to both the constructs of male and female, the cultural building that created these two classs and the relationship between them. ( Pine 1996:253 ) . This was debatable since the definition of gender varies from civilization to civilization and can take to false apprehensions and the creative activity of cultural false beliefs in the field of anthropology . Further, during the 2nd moving ridge, feminist anthropologists pushed for a rejection of the bing dualities between work forces and adult females that were present in Western civilization, such as the thought that work forces should work while adult females stayed at place. During the 2nd moving ridge, mercenary research into the thoughts of societal dealingss about adult females, reproduction and their productive capablenesss in the work force became popular, particularly how these factors related to other societal factors such as societal category. Therefore, in the 2nd moving ridge, feminist anthropologists argued for a move off from the wide generalisations that had plagued the field of anthropology for coevalss ( Lamphere 1996:488 ) . This is linked to the single focal point put-forth by the interpretivist motion in anthropology during the 1950s. However, it differs because it makes connexions between adult females irrespective of what civilization they belong to. Contemporary women's rightist anthropologists make up the 3rd moving ridge of feminist anthropology, which started in the 1980s and continues throughout the new millenary. Feminist anthropologists of today, are no longer entirely focused on the gender dissymmetry but instead focal point on the differences that exist between classs such as category, race and ethnicity ( Geller and Stockett, 2006 ) . This modern-day focal point therefore examines the differences that exist between adult females with differing societal backgrounds, instead than concentrating on the difference between males and females ( McGee, Warms 1996: 392 ) . Contemporary women's rightist anthropology besides examines how these assorted societal factors interact, particularly in the con text of power, which is frequently used as the chief method of analysis. However, this method has resulted in a extremely disconnected theoretical attack, which uses combined pieces of assorted theories ( Geller and Stockett, 2006 ) . Cardinal Peoples in Feminist Anthropology One of the cardinal figures in the first moving ridge of feminist anthropology was Ruth Benedict ( 1887-1948 ) . Benedict was a pupil of Franz Boas, and one of the first female anthropologists, gaining her doctor's degree from Columbia University in 1923 ( Buckner 1997: 34 ) . Most of her work focused on Native Americans and other groups which led her to develop her â€Å" configurational attack † to civilization, which views cultural systems as working to prefer certain personality types among different societies ( Buckner 1997: 34 ) . Another cardinal figure who emerged in the 2nd moving ridge of feminist anthropology was Margaret Mead ( 1901-1978 ) another pupil of Franz Boas, who was friends with Ruth Benedict. Meads feminist work centered on the separating factors between sex and gender. Many of her theories were influenced by or borrowed from Gestalt psychological science, a subfield of psychological science which focused on analysing personality as an interconnected psy chological form alternatively of a aggregation of unrelated elements ( McGee, Warms 1996:202 ) Her work attempted to divide the biological factors from the cultural factors that influence human behaviour and personality development and helped to construct a model for the emerging subject of feminist anthropology. Additionally, her work analyzed the permeant sexual dissymmetry that existed in the ethnographic literature of anthropology during the clip. ( Levinson, Ember 1996:488 ) . Basic Dogmas of Interpretive Anthropology The intent of symbolic anthropology is to analyze the different ways that people understand their milieus, every bit good as the differing readings of those who act within them. Symbolic anthropologists believe that these readings can be combined to make a shared cultural system of significance, or shared apprehensions shared between members of the same civilization. However, it is understood that non all members of a civilization will hold the exact same beliefs ( Des Chene 1996:1274 ) . One of the chief focal points of symbolic anthropology is the survey of symbols and the assorted ways that symbols are created and have their significances assigned to them. Symbolic anthropologists believe that scrutiny of these symbols and the procedures that create them ( such as myth and faith ) will light the cardinal inquiries of human societal life shared by each civilization ( Spencer 1996:535 ) . Therefore, symbolic anthropologists view civilization as an independent system of intending tha t can be deciphered by construing cardinal symbols and rites that create it ( Spencer 1996:535 ) . Overall, there are two cardinal premises in symbolic anthropology. The first of these premises provinces that the beliefs of a certain group of people, nevertheless unintelligible they may look, can ever be understood when they are examined as portion of an bing cultural system of significance ( Des Chene 1996:1274 ) . The 2nd premiss provinces that the actions of a specific group of people are guided by the reading of these symbols. These two premises allows for symbolic anthropologists to use symbolism to construe both ideal and material activities of a specific group of people. Frequently, the focal point of symbolic anthropology will be on faith, cosmology, ritual activity, and expressive imposts such as mythology and the acting humanistic disciplines ( Des Chene 1996:1274 ) . However, symbolic anthropologists besides study other signifiers of societal organisation such as affinity and political organisation, which allows research workers to analyze the function that these symbols play in the mundane life of people from different civilizations. ( Des Chene 1996:1274 ) . Cardinal Peoples in Interpretive Anthropology Overall, the field of symbolic anthropology can be divided into two major attacks, each associated with one of the cardinal figures of the theory. The first attack is associated with Clifford Geertz and the University of Chicago and the other with Victor W. Turner at Cornell University. Geertz ‘s place illustrates the interpretative attack to symbolic anthropology, while Turner ‘s illustrates the symbolic attack. Clifford Geertz ( 1926-2006 ) studied at Harvard University in the 1950s and was strongly influenced by the Hagiographas of philosophers such as Langer, Ryle, and Weber. ( Handler 1991 ; Tongs 1993 ) Geertz was influenced mostly by the sociologist Max Weber, finally utilizing different facets of their thought as cardinal elements in his theory of interpretative anthropology, and was more interested in the operations of â€Å" civilization † than the assorted ways that symbols interact within the societal procedure. In his digest of essays entitled â€Å" The Interpretation of Cultures † ( 1973c ) , Geertz argued that an analysis of civilization should â€Å" non [ be ] an experimental scientific discipline in hunt of jurisprudence but an interpretative 1 in hunt of significance † ( Geertz 1973d:5 ) . Further, Geertz believed that civilization was a societal phenomenon and a shared system of intersubjective symbols and significances ( Parker 1985 ) .` This can be seen in his ain definition of civilization, which was â€Å" an historically familial form of significances embodied in symbols, a system of familial constructs expressed in symbolic signifiers by agencies of which work forces communicate, perpetuate, and develop their cognition about and their attitudes toward life † ( Geertz 1973e:89 ) . Geertz ‘s symbolic anthropology focused on the different ways in which symbols operate within a specific civilization, particularly how persons â€Å" see, experience, and think about the universe † ( Ortner 1983:129-131 ) . He believed that civilization is expressed through the external symbols utilized by society and is non merely stored inside the heads of members of that society. Geertz, argued that adult male utilized the symbolic as â€Å" beginnings of light † in order to point himself in his ain system of significance ( Geertz 1973a:45 ) . Therefore, societies use their symbols to show their ain alone â€Å"worldview, value-orientation, ethos, [ and other facets of their civilization ] † ( Ortner 1983:129 ) . Symbols could be seen as â€Å" vehicles of ‘culture † who ‘s intending should non be studied in and of themselves, but alternatively should be studied for what they can uncover about a peculiar civilization. Geertz argued that these cultural symbols shaped the ways that societal histrions see, experience, and think about the universe ( Ortner 1983:129 ) . Victor Witter Turner ( 1920-1983 ) was the leader of the other subdivision of symbolic anthropology ( Turner 1980:143 ) . Born in Scotland, Turner was influenced by the structural-functionalist attack of British societal anthropology that had been outstanding during the clip. In peculiar, Turner was influenced by Emile Durkheim, which shaped his version of symbolic anthropology to concentrate more on the operations of â€Å" society â €  and the ways in which different symbols operate within it. ( Ortner 1983:128-129 ) . Turner, like old British anthropologists, was interested in look intoing whether symbols really functioned within the societal procedure the manner current symbolic anthropologists believed they did. Thus, Turner ‘s attack to symbols was highly different than that of his modern-day, Clifford Geertz. Alternatively of being interested in symbols as vehicles of â€Å" civilization † as Geertz was, Turner believed that symbols functioned as â€Å" operators in the societal procedure † ( Ortner 1983:131 ) and that â€Å" the symbolic look of shared significances † , non the attractive force of stuff involvements, prevarication at the centre of human relationships † ( Maning 1984:20 ) . Turner believed that symbols â€Å" instigate societal action † and exercise â€Å" determinable influences tending individuals and groups to action † ( Turner 1967:36 ) and felt that these â€Å" operators, † if placed in a certain agreement and context, would bring forth â€Å" societal transmutations † which both act to maintain the people in a society tied to the society ‘s specific societal norms every bit good as decide societal struggle and assistance in altering the societal position of the histrions involved ( Ortner 1983:131 ) . Theoretical Similarities There are several theoretical similarities between feminist and symbolic anthropology. Both Fieldss recognize the dynamic nature of societal systems. Like symbolic anthropology which views civilization in footings of symbols and mental footings, accounting for its transient and altering nature, 2nd wave feminist anthropologists rejected Durkheim’s impression of a inactive system composed of built-in dualities, and sought to demo that the societal systems are dynamic. Further, both women's rightist and symbolic anthropology believe in â€Å" actor-centric † actions, intending that actions are non separate from societal histrions but a portion of their societal model. ( Ortner 1983:136 ) . Another cardinal similarity is the focal points shared by both women's rightist and symbolic anthropology. Focus on individuality and difference is a cardinal focal point of both feminist anthropology and symbolic anthropology. This means that there is a focal point on societal classs such as age, business, faith, position, and so on. Power is besides an of import constituent of analysis for feminist anthropology, since the building and passage of individuality occurs through discourses and actions that are structured by contexts of power ( Gellner and Stockett, 2006 ) . However, this besides fits in with Turner ‘s analysis of symbols and societal action. Further, both theories challenge the construct of normality and catholicity that many old anthropological theories supported. The rejection of normality and cosmopolitan truths, every bit good as the thought that anthropology must non merely analyze on a cultural degree, but besides on an single degree, is cardinal to symbolic anthropology. This thought is chiefly seen in feminist anthropology through the thought that male point of view differs well from the female point of view, and that both must be accounted for. The rejection of normality is farther seen in feminist anthropology through fagot theory, which is the most recent reaction against the impression of â€Å"normalcy† Queer theory challenges the construct of heteronormativity, or the premise that heterosexualism and the ensuing societal establishments are the normative socio-sexual constructions in all societies ( Gellner and Stockett, 2006 ) . The theory argues that gender is non a portion of the indispensable ego and is alternatively based upon the socially constructed nature of sexual Acts of the Apostless and individualities, which consist of many varied constituents ( Warner, 1993 ; Barry, 2002 ) . Therefore, like symbolic anthropology, feminist anthropology relies to a great extent on the construct of cultural constructivism. Arguing different positions Due to cultural growing and intervention of Man and Women. The most obvious similarity between the theories is that both were a response to old anthropological theories. The symbolic and interpretative theory was a reactions to structuralism that was grounded in linguistics and semiologies and pioneered by L? vi-Strauss ( Des Chene 1996:1275 ) . The subfield of Feminist Anthropology emerged as a reaction to a perceived androcentric prejudice within the subject ( Lamphere 1996: Additionally, another cardinal similarity between the theories is that they have non been discredited position in the modern societal scientific disciplines? ? Theoretical Differences One of the chief differences between the two anthropological attacks is the catholicity found in feminist anthropology. Although the construct of catholicity is under scrutiny today, early women's rightist anthropologists believed that there was a cosmopolitan subordination of adult females to work forces, in all civilizations around the Earth. Therefore, one of the chief constituents of feminist anthropology was to seek for cosmopolitan accounts for female subordination and gender inequality. However, the thought that all adult females suffer the same subjugation merely because they are adult females does non suit within the symbolic and interpretivist model. Symbolic anthropologists argue that these historically specific Western premises about the societal differences between work forces and adult females can non be decently applied to non-Western societies ( Spencer 1996:538 ) . Another of import difference between feminist and symbolic anthropology is that feminist anthropology c hiefly focuses on the constructs of gender and gender, while symbolic anthropology examines all societal facets. Varies from civilization to civilization Muslim adult females viewed as opressed, but they view forced sexualization as opression Decision

Three Possible Learning Theories Integrated By AIU Online Within The Course

I. IntroductionAmerican intercontinental University has adopted various learning theories to cater for the needs of everyone in the world. These theories include: Gagne’s conditions of learning, the importance of structuring and sequencing of instruction, the socially mediated aspects of learning, individual construction of knowledge through experience and external constraints, experiential knowledge resident within and among adult learners and fostering deep learning.II. Background on LearningLearning is a gradual change in behavior due to practice or experience.  Some proponents who have studied this are Gagne, Reigeluth and Piaget.III. Theories.A. Conditions of learning by Gagne who was an American Psychologist. In his findings and research realized that there is a great connection between learning objectives and appropriate instructional designs. In 1965 he published the book that categorized learning into five taxonomies; 1. Category is verbal information: this is very important in learning process since it will provide the learner with an opportunity to take in the information, analyze it into a meaningful context and encode it to his/her own understanding.2. There are intellectual skills which are required in any learning. To define, classify or apply a concept to solve any problem. 3. Taxonomy is cognitive strategies which the learner employs his or her ways in learning, thinking and doing things. 4. Taxonomy is attitudes; this will enable the learner to use personalized actions to solve normal daily problems. 5. The use of motor skills, one must use what he/she has learnt to perform certain actions using muscles. B. Elaboration theory which shows importance of selecting, structuring and sequencing information.Reigeluth (1979) gave the principles for planning and organizing instruction. Whereby, the instruction must be organized in order of complexity for optimal learning. The learner should develop meaningful concepts to base subsequent ideas and skills. C. Theory fostering deep thinking by Piaget. Piaget said that, there is need to foster deep learning. This enables the students to capitalize in emerging opportunities and be able to meet the ever changing demands of employees.IV. Active Learning Strategies and Exploratory Learning StrategiesThe types of active and exploratory learning strategy include: investigating a system using personal initiative to a real or artificial task, studying a controlled setting with special attention to newly acquired systems, using diaries and structured interviews that focus on learning events, field study, task-oriented explorations, using support from manuals/users/system support personnel and designing a system, and training.V. Electronic Learning Support Technologies There are different learning supports available like; Electronic based facilities, resources and services that are always available.These may be mobile learning, e-learning, web based, interactive television, cable tele vision, video conferencing and use of emails. VI. Conclusion The entire process is highly connected to the theories of learning for instance; Gagne’s theory of conditions of learning is highly implemented because of verbal communication. Materials are structured and sequenced this is in tandem with Reigeluth elaborative theory. The need to foster deep learning is evidenced in use various electronic learning support.

Irony in “Top of the Food Chain” by T. Coraghessan Boyle Essay

T. Coraghessan Boyle’s â€Å"On Top of the Food Chain† is more than just a narration of a selfish person’s mistakes. The narrator’s tone is a literary element used to show man’s indifference for organisms that are of no immediate benefit or are a nuisance to them. _†The thing was, we had a little problem with the insects†¦Ã¢â‚¬ _ The narrator’s tone in â€Å"Top of the Food Chain† is quickly shown as self-centered in working for his comforts and indifferent to the havoc his choices make on the environment. Humans believe that we can solve everything that is put upon us, but there is always a catch. In this story, Mother Nature proves us that she can always be ahead of how humans perceive things. From the very first sentence, the narrator is portrayed as a self-serving person. In charge of a group bringing health care to a third-world village, his choices to improve the lives of the villagers lead to wreaking chaos on the local food chain. The improvements start by poisoning the flies. When the geckos that feed off of these flies die due to starvation, the cat population also diminishes. When the cats are gone, the rat population is left unregulated and is allowed to spread disease to the humans and ruin their crops. The narrator’s condescending tone towards these disastrous events is the most significant factor that Boyle uses to develop his theme. The narrator assumes he is at the top of the food chain, and he has no problem killing off the smaller species. However, the narrator is too indifferent to realize that by hurting the lower members of the food chain, he has hurt himself. This is what shows the true irony in the story. The narrator did something that he believes is good for him, but instead it ends up being entirely the opposite of it. The story reflects that humans can do immoral things, without thinking well of the consequences and the effect it is going to have on others. â€Å"Top of the Food Chain† is ironic since Mother Nature got back at all of the selfishness that was portrayed in the story. Global Warming is a great example of how nature can get back to humans because of our own selfish actions. Human activities contribute to climate change by causing changes in Earth’s atmosphere in the amounts of greenhouse gases, aerosols (small particles), and cloudiness. The largest known contribution comes from the burning of fossil fuels, which releases carbon dioxide gas to the atmosphere. The release of carbon dioxide damages the atmosphere, which cause drastic changes in the climate. However, his tone following the severe circumstances that played out in the story implies that he simply does not care about anything other then what he wants. The narrator’s arrogance and belief that he can do what ever he wants without hurting himself reflects his idea that he is Top of the Food Chain. Unfortunately, he learns the hard way that his selfish actions turn around and hurt him in the end, which ends up being ironic. T. Coraghessan Boyle demonstrated us that nature can always get back to humans despite of whatever we do; selfish or unselfish.

Meaning of Ceteris Paribus Essay

In economics and finance,  the term is used as shorthand for indicating the effect of one economic variable on another, holding constant all other variables that may affect the second variable One of the disciplines in which ceteris paribus clauses are most widely used is economics, in which they are employed to simplify the formulation and description of economic outcomes. When using ceteris paribus in economics, assume all other variables except those under immediate consideration are held constant, . In effect all extra variables remain unchanged and there are no outside influences on the variables being looked at. The only variables being considered are price and demand. It does not take into account any other things, such as inflation, product improvements, etc. This allows for the explanation, examination and understanding of basic economic rules. This operational description intentionally ignores both known and unknown factors that may also influence the relationship between price and quantity demanded, and thus to assume ceteris paribus is to assume away any interference with the given example. Such factors that would be intentionally ignored include: the relative change in price of substitute goods, (e. g. , the price of beef vs pork or lamb); the level of risk aversion among buyers (e. g. , fear of mad cow disease); and the level of overall demand for a good regardless of its current price level (e. g. a societal shift toward vegetarianism) In this example, the clause is used to operationally describe everything surrounding the relationship between both the price and the quantity demanded of an ordinary good. when  discussing the laws of supply and demand, one could say that  if demand for a given product outweighs supply, ceteris paribus, prices will rise. Here, the use of â€Å"ceteris paribus† is simply sayin g that as long as all other factors that could affect the outcome (such as  the existence of a substitute product) remain constant, prices will increase in this situation. For example as the price of Pepsi cola rises, the quantity demanded of Pepsi cola falls, ceteris paribus. If the price raise of Pepsi-cola and nothing else changes, in other words, people’s preferences stay the same, the recipe for Pepsi-cola stays the same, and so on, then in response to the higher price of Pepsi-cola, people will buy less Pepsi-cola. In a nutshell the term ceteris paribus is used to define the law of demand and supply and it literally means all other things remain constant and nothing else changes.